1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1949 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 41). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 1949

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Ms. Marzari

–– 1949

Handling of contracts by Premier's office. Mr. Williams –– 1949

Televising of debates. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1950

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Mr. Miller –– 1950

Small forestry companies. Mr. Kempf –– 1950

Engineers Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 23). Committee stage. (Hon. S. Hagen) –– 1951

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Lovick

Third reading

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Third reading. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1953

Mr. Williams

Mr. Stupich

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Harcourt

Hon. L. Hanson

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 29: minister's office –– 1962

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

Mr. Guno

Mr. Miller

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Edwards

Appendix –– 1974

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to ask the House to welcome to the chamber today your

beautiful wife, Yvonne, your son Christopher, and Yvonne's mother, Mrs.

Elvina Heath.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I recognize in the

gallery today a very dear friend of mine and of the other member from

Nanaimo: Mr. Herb Bibbs. I would ask the House to join me in making him

welcome.

Introduction of Bills

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this is a

housekeeping bill. It provides the capacity to the real estate industry

to create a body to be called the Real Estate Errors and Omissions

Compensation Corporation for the purposes of self-insurance against

errors and omissions liability. It all relates to that particular

function.

Bill 41 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION

MS. MARZARI: This is a question to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker. British Columbia Enterprise Corporation is about

to sell massive quantities of land on behalf of the province. It was

announced at the beginning of this session. Is the company yet

incorporated?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will take the

question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MS. MARZARI: Is the British Columbia

Enterprise Corporation actively doing business at this point in time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I will take

the question as notice, and more detail will be provided by the

Minister of Economic Development.

MS. MARZARI: Does the British Columbia

Enterprise Corporation require legislation to make it legal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, there will be

legislation forthcoming.

MS. MARZARI: The Premier advised this House

that the directors of the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation would

be making disclosures. Have they made disclosures thus far?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not seen

these, and I certainly don't have that knowledge. I will take the

question as notice.

MS. MARZARI: For some time now we have been

under the impression that serious and long-lasting decisions were going

to be made on the lands. In Vancouver particularly. June 11 was when we

were promised some notification. Who is doing this business? Who is

conducting the business at this moment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Ministry of

Economic Development, and the B.C. Development Corporation is certainly

functioning.

HANDLING OF CONTRACTS

BY PREMIER'S OFFICE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier, with respect

to other matters. Contracts all go through the Premier's office now.

Can the Premier advise what expertise his staff have for dealing with

all of the forestry contracts that are going through his office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not all contracts go

through the office. It's contracts dealing with personnel and involving

$500 or more.

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to checking

seedling plantations, matters like that go through the Premier's

office. All of these have been frustrated. They should have been

approved by the beginning of May to carry out the work, but they

weren't approved until recently. So the work has been totally

frustrated in terms of employment and necessary activity in the field.

Has the Premier reconsidered this incredible centralization of activity

in his office which is frustrating reasonable action throughout the

province at the moment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's certainly a

responsible approach to governing: assuring that all contracts are

carefully reviewed and reasons provided for these contracts. I'm sure

the people of British Columbia are grateful that we have such a

mechanism.

MR. WILLIAMS: And we certainly appreciate

the faith you have in your Minister of Forests, Mr. Premier.

To the Minister of Forests: last night on TK Radio he

indicated that the value of those jobs on Lyell Island and the timber

total some $55 billion over 50 years. Could the minister confirm those

figures that he gave to Mr. Blaine Grengazny last night"

HON. MR. PARKER: If you take a figure of

250,000 metres, which is approximately the reduction of the allowable

annual cut for the tree-farm licence....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PARKER: I think we've left the

windows open again, because I hear a seagull.

If you take the 250,000 metres annual allowable cut — and an

annual allowable cut in this province is a cut in perpetuity — and you

take $200 a cubic metre, which is the

[ Page 1950 ]

economic value to the province, it works out to approximately

$50 million a year. If you go out for maybe half a rotation age of 50

years — it's simple arithmetic; it should be for some people — at bank

prime it works out to approximately $55 billion.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister

doesn't understand that economists discount over time; they don't add

over time. So these numbers should all be discounted by the interest

rate.

If the minister really thinks that those 70 jobs on Lyall

Island are worth $50 billion, then why doesn't the minister offer to

buy Ottawa?

HON. MR. PARKER: We might just do that one

day, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, if we lived in Hull, I imagine

we would see better than $100 million go for a museum in Hull.

We're talking numbers. We hear a lot of braying and carrying

on, but I haven't seen too many jobs created by economists. The people

who are cutting that timber are creating $200 per cubic metre worth of

economic activity in this province, and when you take $50 million every

year for 50 years, it goes on and on and on; that's the value to

British Columbia. The people across the way and a lot of people who

have no hands on in South Moresby, such as those from Toronto, Ottawa,

points east and west, seem to think we should give away our province at

their bidding. I don't believe in that. I'm standing for the resources

of British Columbia to be used by the people of the province to create

wealth and jobs in British Columbia, and I'll continue to do that.

TELEVISING OF DEBATES

MR. G. HANSON: My question is to the

Provincial Secretary and relates to letting the people of the province

witness firsthand the heavy mental candlepower that sits across from us

in this chamber; it relates to television in this assembly. Earlier

this year the government advertised for proposals for installation of a

television system in this assembly. Has the government decided on a

system?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe that matters

dealing with the assembly — and that includes television — are better

addressed to the Board of Internal Economy. You have representation on

that board as well. To my knowledge, a system hasn't been decided upon

at this time.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary to the

minister. All members of this chamber, and certainly all members of the

public, are interested in this matter because they would like to

witness firsthand the proceedings in this House. I think my question

addresses this. Will the government give an undertaking to this House

that the system will be available by this fall?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, you have

jurisdictions that deal with things, and you have a jurisdiction that

is set up to deal with matters pertaining to what happens in this

House, benefits, stipends and a whole host of other things: the Board

of Internal Economy. You ought to address the question to that board,

of which I happen to be one member.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary to the

Premier. The Premier has declared publicly to the people of the

province that television will be provided. Will he give an undertaking

to this House that a system will be in place for this fall?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, all the

information is being gathered now. Until we have all the facts and find

out what the options are with respect to the installation and the cost,

no decision will be made.

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Minister

of Finance and Corporate Relations. Mr. Minister, once again the

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has deserted a small town by

announcing the closure of their branch in Hudson's Hope. Could the

minister advise what steps he has taken to ensure that there will be a

financial institution serving the people in that community and the

surrounding area?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I am aware

of the fact that the chartered bank has made that announcement, and I

am also aware that there is a high degree of community interest in the

subject. Unfortunately, these kinds of decisions are frequently made by

others far away from the province. Certainly the viability of the

communities so affected is something that concerns us all.

As a consequence of discussions with the hon. member, we are

examining closely the possibility of reactivating a branch of the local

credit union in the area, with a view to ensuring that the citizens

receive an adequate level of financial service. As of this point in

time, I don't have any specific progress to report, other than that

discussions are ongoing, and hopefully a solution will be found in the

near future.

MR. MILLER: Despite the amendments to the

Corporation Capital Tax Act, which in effect gave the chartered banks

about a $6 million break this fiscal year, the CIBC particularly is not

serving the needs of rural British Columbia. Would the minister advise

the House whether or not he has decided to review the province's

maintaining the CBIC as their bank of record, in view of their failure

to serve the people of this province?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the

contractual arrangements we enter into with various financial

institutions are a subject of constant review. We are monitoring

events, and we certainly have made our views known in terms of the

parochial interest we see and are desirous of obtaining when it relates

to B.C.'s financial infrastructure. So the loss of any kind of

activity, even at the local level, is something that troubles us. To

suggest, however, that that is the only chip on the table is a

simplification. Suffice it to say that we are cognizant of the problem,

we believe we can find a made-in-B.C. solution to it, and we're working

to that end.

SMALL FORESTRY COMPANIES

MR. KEMPF: A question to the Minister of

Forests and Lands. Last week the minister was quoted by the Smithers

Interior News , when speaking of the small business program in the

forest industry, as saying: "Small business operations are less

efficient and more wasteful. The small company shows less commitment

toward reforestation than the larger

[ Page 1951 ]

companies. It just cuts and leaves." My question is: what

evidence does the minister have to back such allegations?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I guess some

22 years in the industry.

MR. KEMPF: Is the minister, in his apparent

dislike for small operators, going to use this philosophy to continue

to deny the little guy, the small entrepreneur, the real British

Columbian, a place in the province's forest industry?

HON. MR. PARKER: This ministry has never

denied small business and won't be denying small business. Those are

concerns that I have, as far as small business is concerned. That's the

sort of thing that requires a fairly substantial manning level at the

district office level, because with the small business enterprise

program, the licensee does not have to build his access. He doesn't

have to look after his reforestation; that's the ministry's

responsibility. Hence the opportunity to cut and to leave, which is

what I told the reporter, and which is what he reported. If there is

such a concern by this member across the hall that small business has

been left in the lurch, I'd like to know why it wasn't dealt with

several months ago.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 23,

Mr. Speaker.

ENGINEERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, can I

advise the committee that for purposes of the committee stage of this

bill, the government will be represented by the first member for

Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who has intimate knowledge of this

bill and of the professional engineers' association.

section 1.

MS. MARZARI: I somewhat expected that the

government side would present a resume of the bill and generally do an

overview of it. But since we are directly into

section 1, I will

address that.

The opposition side has, for some time, looked forward to this

bill, as have the professional engineers. There is no difficulty with

the vast majority of this bill; in fact, there is not a great deal of

difficulty with the entire bill, as it does for the engineers what they

have been asking for some years — amendments to their act which would

bring them into the latter half of the twentieth century, provide them

with a stiffer disciplinary procedure and provide them and the public

with some accountability in their structure.

However, it has come to our attention in the last month or so

— and we feel that this should not be allowed to go — that the

association of technicians and technologists feels very strongly that

the engineers are establishing for themselves what most professions

establish: a closed shop. I don't think it is the intention of this

side of the House to interfere with a profession's self-definition. In

fact, this is something that we see the government side doing, and we

do not necessarily want to go along with government telling professions

how they should and should not practise, as long as they are

indemnified and as long as they have provisions to do professional work

which protect the public as well as their own interest.

Our concern here, however, is that there are 5,000 trained

technicians and technologists in this province who have their own act,

established in 1985, which gives them, in their eyes, some claim to the

possibility of being included in the professional engineering act. Our

side of the House wants to look at this more closely. The opposition

would like to think that many new fields, many new specializations, are

growing in engineering which need serious consideration.

It is our suggestion, therefore, that the act go ahead, but

that

section 1 of the act, which deals with definition, be stood down

until such time as the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training

(Hon. S. Hagen) can sit down with both the technicians and

technologists and the professional engineers, and come up with some

more complete definition of engineering for

section 1. We suggest this

in good faith. We suggest this because we know how difficult it is to

bring

an act back to the House once it is through, and by standing down

section 1 for a period of six months we might come to some logical

conclusion and joint recommendation from the minister, the technicians

and the engineers.

So that basically is our concern about

section 1, and I know

that another member of the opposition would like to speak a little bit

further about that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, that,

quite obviously, is unacceptable. The House has given this bill second

reading. The House has decided it will proceed into committee with it

as it came from the House after second reading. If the committee wishes

to oppose

section 1, then the committee can make that decision; but

that would require a division. The bill will go ahead complete, unless

there are amendments offered by the government. At this point there are

none, so we'll proceed with the bill in its totality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you'll take your seat for

a moment, hon. member, I should just point out that I didn't actually

hear an amendment being made; but if there was any thought in that

direction, such an amendment would certainly not be acceptable.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that can't be applied in

this particular instance, either. Hon. member, if you're thinking of

postponing something, as laid down in the standing orders, that can be

done, but only during the period of time that the act is under

discussion by the committee. It can't postpone a

section of

an act to

another time. That requires other legislation.

[2:30]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, thank you for

your clarification. In our case then, since it has come to second

reading and since it's too late to put forward such an amendment, what

I will do is say that this side of the House is in agreement with the

act; but we are also very much aware that the minister has already

engaged the engineers and the technicians in some discussions, and I

would hope that there

[ Page 1952 ]

would be a continuation of that commitment, so that when the

act is passed, those discussions might bring forward another amendment

on the definition at our next session or next ear.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would say at

the outset that, as all of you know, I am a member of the association —

I am one of 12,000. If that is a problem with you, we'll of course

change the order. But I would say, in response to the submission by the

member, that discussions between the engineering association and the

technicians' association have been going on for years, and will

continue.

MR. LOVICK: I think we're all very

concerned about this, and saddened by the fact that we seem to be

victims of a procedural problem here, because what we're suggesting is

that this bill, which we would all like to support, nevertheless

contains a

section that is very likely to cause considerable discord

and unhappiness among people directly affected by the legislation. We

have certainly had negotiations in the past few months. Indeed, the

member for Vancouver South and I have discussed this bill, and talked

about the concerns that each of us had, and we thought we had come some

distance toward solving those problems. We left the measure, however,

Mr. Chairman — and I'm saying this because I want it on the record —

with the knowledge and the understanding that there would be some

further discussion by the parties directly affected. Sadly, that does

not seem to have happened. Indeed, as we're standing here talking about

this, the minister in whose name the bill appears isn't in the House.

I'm sorry about that, because I wonder whether the minister might

listen somewhat sympathetically to the case we're presenting.

The case is just this: the problem with

section 1, as the

other side of the particular dispute and discussion sees it, is that it

has the effect of giving to the engineering profession powers that that

profession did not have before; namely, the right to restrict entry to

the work done by engineers and technologists which — again in the minds

of the association of technologists and technicians — was not formerly

the private and exclusive domain of engineers. That may not be the

case. I've had assurances from various persons speaking for the

engineering profession that it isn't the case. However, the

technologists and technicians, despite having those assurances from us,

from government, remain unconvinced. They are concerned that what we

have here is an approach effectively changing the law, amending the

Engineers Act in such a way that we change the rules of the game, and

that forever after, that profession which technologists and technicians

thought they had a piece of will be barred to them. That's their

concern. Obviously it's contentious, it's controversial, and I'm

suggesting that we are in error if we're caught in the trap that says

we must accept the act in its entirety, without an opportunity to at

least put very significant pressure on, and questions about,

section 1

of the act. That's our concern.

MR. R. FRASER: For the benefit of some of

the members who do not have a great understanding of the history of

this act, at one time there were two types of engineers: civil and

military. The civil engineers broke down into a number of different

disciplines, and the process continues. With respect to the

technologists, the act that was passed in 1985 is a right to title, not

a right to practise, and that is a significant difference.

MR. LOVICK: Just a question or two to the

first member for Vancouver South, who is charged with shepherding this

bill through. Could the member tell this side whether the wording of

the enabling clause that is being attached to the original definition

of the profession, which is a very enabling clause.... Let me quote it;

after listing a number of specific engineering branches, it says: "and

other branches of engineering that may be designated by the council and

for which university engineering programs have been accredited by the

Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board or by a body which, in the

opinion of the council, is its equivalent." That seems to me to provide

rather a lot of latitude to that private body, that association of

engineers, to in effect determine who is and who is not an engineer,

and then to restrict the practice of engineering work to the people so

named. My question is whether that kind of clause is typical or is

special — is aberrant.

MR. R. FRASER: What you refer to, of

course, is how people become professional engineers: either by taking

association exams or by completing a university course at an accredited

university. So you establish a level of education, and then you become

a registered member of the association.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer. I

think there was something wrong with my question; let me try it again.

When we set up

an act for a particular profession, whether

that be dentists, lawyers, engineers, accountants or whoever, is it

customary to say that we define the profession not by being specific

but rather by adding another clause, as we have here, that says "and

other branches" of the discipline as defined and determined by us, the

people directly affected? Is that common?

MR. R. FRASER: It has been common.

Certainly the engineers, as a discipline, have expanded with new

technology. Basically the restriction is a level of education that

people are asked to achieve. But

definitions have been expanded, I

believe, in most other professions as well.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

MR. LOVICK: Again, I'll just ask the first

member for Vancouver South if he would be good enough to share with us

a response to the concerns expressed by the other party affected by

this — namely, the technologists and technicians. They suggest to us

that the wording of this particular

section is simply too restrictive.

I'm wondering if the first member for Vancouver South would care to try

to allay and assuage their fears.

MR. R. FRASER: No.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 1953 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Engineers Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call

adjourned debate on third reading of Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I stand to

support this hoist motion. It is a last-minute hope on the part of the

opposition that the government will reconsider the steps they are

taking, because the whole process that has gone on has suggested a kind

of holy war attitude on the government side of the House and on the

part of the Premier — a holy war in terms of an anti-labour view. That

really means an anti-worker view, which is extremely unhealthy.

It's a blindness that was caused, I think, by the failure with

respect to the IWA strike and the length of it last year. What we're

seeing now is a kind of retribution. It is part of that blind side that

we're getting from the leader of this government all too often these

days. What this whole statute represents — that's why it really needs

to be reconsidered at this stage — is a rupturing of the social

contract of the last 50 years in this province. It really is a tearing

asunder of the social contract, the balance between workers and owners

or labour and capital. It's an unwritten thing in some ways, an

understanding between these major forces in our society. The written

documentation behind it, in terms of the Labour Code and other

statutes, is being torn asunder by this act. It's a major change.

It's a rupture, Mr. Speaker, that really is unequalled in the

western world today. Even with the Thatchers and the Reagans this kind

of tearing asunder of the social contract has not occurred in either

the United Kingdom or the United States. That's why my colleague from

Vancouver East was able to read from a Eugene, Oregon, newspaper

suggesting that this was something like one would expect in the Third

World in terms of a reaction to the incremental growth of the power of

labour over the last 50 years.

As a result, this taking away of the incremental growth of

rights on the part of workers in the province is not going to be

readily accepted. It's as simple as that: it will not be readily

accepted. The leaders of the trade union movement and their members

have clearly indicated that by their actions over the last couple of

months as well.

[2:45]

It might have been different if the government had gone out in

the last election and said: "This is what we stand for. We don't

believe that the social contract of the last 50 years should be

tolerated any more." If you had done that, and if you had got a mandate

on that basis, then I think that we might more readily live with it,

and this legislation might have more readily passed in this chamber.

But that isn't what's happened.

The problem of having the consent of the governed is something

that slips by the leader of this administration, Mr. Speaker. It seems

to be too subtle a concept for the leadership in this administration to

accept or understand. The British system gives great powers to

government. The roots of it are in the powers granted to the King in

the early days of the United Kingdom. These great, great powers have to

be handled with sensitivity by those that wield them. That doesn't seem

to be there in terms of understanding in this administration. As a

result, there's going to be a price paid by all of us in the province —

not just those who don't understand the subtleties of the system.

What we're going to see down the road is the development of

Gandhian strategies on the part of organized labour that will be

different than we've ever seen in this province — Gandhian strategies

that I suggest will be successful, but which will have a significant

negative impact on the economy. After all, what did the former Deputy

Minister of Labour say about this legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Leslie. Or both of them.

Even Mr. Matkin, at an earlier stage, made it very clear how concerned

he was about this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you mean the rewriting of

history. A government that loves to rewrite history, in process right

now.

What did Mr. Leslie say? He said he believed that the amended

Bill 19 would deunionize the construction industry. That's clearly the

goal of this government: to deunionize the workers of this province, to

lower their wages and all the rest. He also said that all unionized

employees have reason to be concerned about the greater ease with which

employers will be able to dispose of parts of their companies. Then he

said that the close monitoring of collective bargaining which the bill

allows will end up as an impediment rather than an aid, so that the big

hand of government intervening will be an impediment in the entire

process.

He also said more. He said that this is, in effect,

an act of

legislative violence. Those are very strong words indeed. Let's

remember who this is coming from. This is from a thoughtful civil

servant. a former Rhodes scholar, a negotiator with a long history of

working on management's side, the employers' side. That's the

background of Mr. Leslie, and the members opposite certainly know and

understand that. That's why it bothers them as much as it does.

What about other thoughtful people? And I don't mean the

second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith). Maybe you noticed what

Prof. Laudadio, professor of economics at the University of Victoria

for the last decade, said just this last week, but maybe you didn't. If

you didn't, I'd like to quote the professor of economics at the

University of Victoria. He's probably a scholar of the Chicago school —

if you understand that — and clearly not some person with leftist

tendencies. What does he say about you folks and this bill? What he

says about you folks is: "They're more revolutionary than the

socialists. They want to change things quickly and radically." He's

talking about this social contract being tom up. That's what the

professor is saying. What does he say about the economic impact of this

statute? He says it will be all negative, that there is nothing

positive to come out of it. That's a professor of economics. That means

economic trouble down the road. That's why you should reconsider this

statute.

[ Page 1954 ]

[Mr. Lovick in the chair.]

Prof. Ruff at the University of Victoria says similar things,

and he recalls....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, he's not of the Chicago

school. But let's have some balance here. You people wouldn't

understand balance if there was a scale in front of you. Prof. Ruff,

political scientist, says it's going to be the same sort of thing as

pre-1972, in terms of the Mediation Commission.

I think we should listen to people like John Shields, the head

of the Government Employees' Union, because Mr. Shields strikes me as

one of the new, more thoughtful breed in the trade union movement. He

says: "The government should really look at the other considerations

when they irrevocably tilt the balances and introduce authoritarian

government into what is essentially a voluntary process."

Again, it's this centralized attitude on the part of

government. It's an idea over there, particularly in the Premier's

office, that big government is all-knowing and all-wise. It's just part

of this whole exercise. I pointed to a thing earlier this afternoon, in

terms of the Premier's office intervening on modest plantation

contracts in the Forests ministry. They know nothing about forestry,

they get held up for two months, the weeds grow up and they can't even

check out whether the young seedlings are there anymore. It's that kind

of madness in terms of being the only competent person in the room, the

only competent player around: "If I can jump into everything, I can

solve everything." That's what goes on in the Premier's office. You can

run a fantasy land that way and get away with it; you can run a nursery

— a small one — that way and get away with it; but you can't run a huge

government or a bureaucracy that way. If you do, we all pay the price,

and that's what is going to happen down the road.

What's happening with this statute is a major shift in power

from labour to capital. I don't know if we should really use those

terms. What is labour all about, Mr. Speaker? You know what labour is

all about, and I'm pleased to see that — we've had Speakers here who

may not have known what labour was all about. What's capital all about?

Labour is all about people, working people, and capital is about money

and that kind of power. This bill takes power from workers and shifts

it to people with money, the controllers of capital. It tilts the

playing field dramatically — more than Thatcher would, more than Reagan

would. There is already a great deal of power in the centres of money

in this world. For those who track these things, with the

internationalization of capital in recent years there is more power in

capital than there has ever been. And the electronic technology

available for moving money around the world — day and night, while we

sleep — is unprecedented in the modem history of the world. Yet the

people over there are determined to deliver more power to the centres

of capital, to the centres of money. They are willing to do that at a

price to working people. That's what this is all about — delivering

power and control of more and more to fewer people, because of the

internationalizing of capital.

Where's the justification for this? The pattern is all clearly

in the other direction. Government should generally — in the west,

anyway — be trying to redress this balance. You're pushing it the other

way. What's happened in British Columbia in the last year in terms of

wages? We haven't had spiralling of wages at all in recent years.

What's happened is that we had an inflation rate — according to B.C.

Central and the federal government — of 3.3 percent last year. We had

an average wage increase of 0.6 percent in the last year. So the scales

are clearly loaded in that direction, in favour of capital.

There are no fewer dollar bills out there this year than last

year. There's more money in circulation this year than there was last

year, and it is in fewer and fewer hands. You are designing a system to

see that that is accelerated. Maybe the average unthinking individual

might think that there is less money out there, and that's why they

must take less. The facts of the matter are that there's more money out

there. It's just in fewer and fewer hands and frequently being

redirected away from home base here in Canada.

So in the past year, real wages in British Columbia went down

by 2.7 percent. We've now had a decade of that under Social Credit —

declining real wages. Yet at the same time, housing, food, public

transport, recreation and education in British Columbia have among the

highest cost in the country. So for the average working person in B.C.

there is a pattern of growing costs and declining wages. That's the

pattern, and this bill will accelerate that.

More and more, this government looks to me like the gang that

couldn't shoot straight. You fight yesterday's battles with yesterday's

ideology. Is it any wonder that you are becoming the laughing-stock of

the nation? In terms of substance and process, you're all wrong. Quebec

and Ontario have had more work stoppages than we have had, and they

have not responded with this kind of sledge-hammer legislation. As a

result, their economies are booming, relative to ours. Look at the wage

levels in Ontario. Bricklayers are getting $28 an hour, or something

like that, with increases coming up.

Your actions over there will beget reactions in society.

What's clear about the way this government works is that you generally

can't see very far ahead, and all kinds of predictable things are not

perceived, by either this minister or the Premier or this government.

Graham Leslie warned you; Jim Matkin warned you. You ignored

them. You got a general strike; 300,000 people in this province said

there's something desperately wrong in terms of this legislation. In a

kind of fury, you turned to the courts, and again you became the

laughing-stock of the nation when the courts threw out your suggestion

that sedition was involved, in terms of this response.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The wording was all sedition,

Mr. Minister. The wording was clearly "sedition." If I was in as much

trouble in my own ministry as you are, I would be very wary about

wandering into the Attorney-General's turf. How big a swamp do you

want, Mr. Minister? How big a swamp do you want to wade through over

there? You're hell-bent on deunionizing British Columbia, that's clear.

You want to deunionize this province and get us into the kind of

Pacific Rim situation that we're slipping towards.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, is that right? Look, the

rest of the country is moving ahead. Manitoba is moving ahead; Ontario

is moving ahead; Quebec is moving ahead. You guys have to give us an

extension of the Bill Bennett years. How

[ Page 1955 ]

appropriate that the member for Kamloops should talk about

that kind of extension with favour.

We suffered a setback of a decade under that bird in the

Premier's office and his colleagues — the Bill Bennett office. I think

it is entirely appropriate that there is a monument out there in the

rose garden to the former Premier, appreciating Mr. Bennett. It is just

about a foot in height, I think it is an appropriate monument to the

former Premier: a stumbling block in the path of history.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would just

advise the member that if the members opposite will allow the member to

continue speaking, and if the member will address his remarks to the

Chair, the debate will progress much more smoothly.

MR. WILLIAMS: I never promised you a rose

garden, and I'll withdraw the suggestion that the former Premier was a

stumbling block in the path of history. I can think maybe of some

better statement, given a bit of time.

But the reality is that we've had ten years. We've had

restraint; it was wrong-headed. It had a negative impact on the

provincial economy. We have not yet recovered from those restraint

years, and now we are in Bill 19, which is exactly the same thing all

over again. It's the Bill Bennett government with a smile on its face

instead of a scowl — that's the only difference. What we've got now is

the genuine, pure Social Credit. We've got genuine, pure, lowbrow

Social Credit in power. The big change in the last year or so.... The

reason I suggest this is that you've lost the Liberals. You've lost Dr.

McGeer; you've lost Garde Gardom; you've lost Allan Williams. Why,

you've lost half your brain-power over there. The IQ level has

descended. Mr. Speaker, I think you would appreciate that.

But I don't want to continue in that area for now. We don't

need another stumbling-block. We've had a stumbling-block in the form

of restraint, in terms of building this economy. We have another

stumbling-block in Bill 19. It's a continuation of the black years of

Bill Bennett.

[3:00]

I urge you to reconsider this legislation and think about the

implications for the provincial economy. All of us will pay the price.

You are dismissing 40 percent of the population of British Columbia by

moving on this bill in this way. We cannot build a big and better

British Columbia by doing that. I urge you to support the hoist motion.

MR. STUPICH: If I may, I will start off in

much the same vein as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) did

when he moved this amendment in the first place. I think he admitted

then that he had very little hope that the amendment would be supported

by the government. It's one more attempt for us to present in as

reasonable and as persuasive a way as we can the arguments in favour of

not proceeding with this bill at this particular point in time. It

gives us that much more opportunity, in the hope that perhaps someone

on the government side of the House, in particular the Minister of

Labour, will start listening and hearing what we have to say.

We're speaking, we believe, on behalf of the majority of the

people in the province when we plead with the government not to set

fire to labour-management relations in the province of British Columbia

at this time. We're trying to remind the minister and the government

that progress was being made. The labour movement and employers got the

message, before this bill was ever introduced, that the government was

concerned about what was happening in B.C., and that the government

might take legislative action. Labour and management reacted. by

starting to work together in a way so different from anything that we'd

ever seen in the past that I believed there was real hope for the

future — until the government moved in in its heavy-handed way with

this particular legislation.

We don't expect the government to support this amendment, but

we're still hoping. This is the final countdown; it's getting awfully

close to blast-off. We're still hoping that the government will send a

signal out to the community, to labour and to management that they're

hoping that labour and management will get their act together and that

they're prepared to give them some time to do so. You can defeat this

amendment, Mr. Speaker. but you can still send out a signal that you're

not going to proceed with proclamation at this time; you're going to

wait to see whether, now that you have the attention of labour and

management....

I'm reminded of a lot of stories that Tommy Douglas told. I

can't tell any of them nearly as well. But I like the one about the

farmer who was trying to get the mule to pull a heavy load. The mule

wouldn't budge. A stranger came along the road and said he would get

the mule to move. He picked up a 2-by-4 and hit the mule over the head.

so that it dropped down to its.... I was going to say knees. but that's

not really the correct part of the anatomy when it comes to mules. It

dropped down, shook its head, got up and started to move. The stranger

said: "The first thing you have to do is get the mule's attention."

Mr. Speaker, the government has the attention of business and

labour in this province. The government might say: "Now that we've got

your attention.... Now that we've shown what we can do and what we

will do, if we believe it's necessary in the interests of the province,

you go ahead and try to work it out. And we won't proclaim this bill in

the interim, to see whether or not labour and management can and will

get their act together." We're still hoping. even at this eleventh

hour. that that can happen.

Arguments have been presented by the member for North Island

and by a lot of other people in the community — and a lot of these have

been read into the record — to the effect that what the government is

really looking for is deunionization: deunionization in the

construction industry — and the minister himself warned against that:

deunionization among the IWA, particularly in the truck loggers'

industry — and that has been warned against. Mr. Speaker, I wish that

were it. My concern is that it's not so much deunionization that the

government is seeking, or the supporters of the government — I don't

want to say the government; I hope that isn't the case. But the

supporters of the government are not so much seeking deunionization as

they are the kind of unions that operate in right- and left-wing

dictatorships, where the trade union movement is not an organization

fighting on behalf of its members but rather a message-carrier from the

government, from employers, down to the employees; it functions in that

way and has no other purpose. Now I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are

people in our community who would like to see that happening in B.C.,

where a tame trade union movement would

keep the workers in line, and would pass on messages from government or

from employers, and that's the way I see this legislation working.

[ Page 1956 ]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has hinted, or has said without

saying it in a way that can be used in court or even in this new

council, that he doesn't expect it will work that way. That's not the

point. The member for North Island has pointed out very, very clearly

to all who will listen — and I think the only one who has listened to

all of this has been the Minister of Labour; had everyone listened we

might be better off — that there is a very real concern in the minds of

the people outside of this chamber that the legislation can be used

that way. The minister may say it will not be, because it's not his

idea to use it that way, but that isn't the point. If it can be used

that way, there's always the danger that it will be used that way.

That's what is frightening the people who are involved in

employee-employer bargaining.

As long as that fear is there, the legislation will not serve

the interests of the government, will not serve the interests of the

people of British Columbia. There is a perception out there that things

are bad in B.C. — a perception that, as many of us have pointed out, is

not real, but as long as the perception is there, it's damaging to B.C.

The perception is there even more so when the government proceeds with

legislation like this. This demonstrates to everyone, not just the

people in B.C. but anyone interested in looking at B.C., that things

are so bad in B.C. that the government has to bring in legislation

giving it the authority to intervene in almost every dispute. It is not

that it will intervene in every dispute, but it can use the authority

to take it into the cabinet, the Legislature, or put it in the hands of

a commissioner interfere whenever they feel that there is something

going on that is against the public interest.

If things are so bad here that the government has to take what

are really dictatorial powers compared to any power that any government

has ever taken before in the province of B.C., then the message is

going out that things are really bad in B.C. and something has to be

done about it. Until you see whether the remedy is going to work.... If

you're an ambassador you don't look too closely at what's happening in

B. C.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we hope the government will listen to

some of these concerns that we are presenting as genuinely and

sincerely as we can on behalf of the people of B.C., on behalf of the

community.

The member for North Island mentioned the effect of backing

down. He suggested that for one or two days there might be some

gloating on the part of some people that the government has been

forced to back down. I don't think that would happen even for an hour

or two. I think there would be such tremendous relief in our whole

community that the government was going to refrain from proclaiming

this bill immediately that there would be nothing but compliments.

Certainly the member for North Island would get some of those

complimentary remarks — and would deserve them; I think everyone will

agree to that. But the government itself, I believe, would be

complimented and congratulated immediately for saying: "Yes, we are

going to wait. We are going to see whether the community can work out

its problems without the heavy-handed interference from government."

There would be absolutely no criticism of the government for having

done what it did.

We've been asking from the beginning for more time for the

community as a whole to consult, to think, to speak and to make

representations. All we're asking now is that the community be given

more time to sort out its own problems — our problems, problems of the

people of British Columbia.

That's what we're asking for, Mr. Speaker, and still hoping. I

don't think there would be criticism even for an hour. There would be

nothing but relief and approval of what was going on.

I am concerned about essential services. I think we all are,

and I'm not sure that this has been said in quite the way I'm going to

say it. I know there was some discussion in the Legislature about

whether ferries were essential services. I'm inclined to side with

those who think they are, but that's not the point. It's not up to me

to decide. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in every instance where

representatives of employers and employees sit down together and agree

to a level of essential service in any particular service being

offered, the workers have always maintained the level of essential

service that they have agreed to provide. To the best of my knowledge,

there has never been any withdrawal of what has been previously agreed

to as a level of service that must be maintained as being essential to

the good and welfare of the community.

I've always argued that with respect to the ferries. When I've

been asked what I'd do when it comes up during election time, I would

say that as government, the employers' representatives should sit down

with the government employees, and in that case particularly the

ferries, and reach agreement as to what level of services is essential.

I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago, when the ferries

went on strike — this was the Ministry of Highways ferries; it wasn't

the ferry system itself. There were representations made from people on

Gabriola that they needed a minimum level of ferry service in order to

maintain security of life on the island. The ferry workers agreed to

provide that level of service, and the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways agreed with the ferry workers that that minimum of service

should be reinstituted and maintained for the duration of the work

stoppage. That agreement was reached between employer and employee

representatives, and the workers would have done it.

It was all agreed to until the Premier heard about it, and

then Premier Bennett stopped it and said there was to be absolutely no

resumption of any level of ferry service, as far as the Ministry of

Highways ferries were concerned, unless the employees agreed to

reinstitute total scheduled service. He wasn't going to accept any

part-time service, any level of service that the community felt was

essential; he wanted all or nothing. :So they got nothing.

Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is that if employee

and employer representatives are given the opportunity, and if the

challenge is there for them to reach agreement as to what level of

essential service shall be maintained, then it works. But to pass a law

and say that you have to resume work — and that's what this one says —

in the first place admits that work is going to stop; in the second

place says that until that process is complete, work will not resume;

and in the third place gives no guarantee that work is going to resume

simply because the government says it must or because the commissioner

says it must. There have been examples of that in history, where

governments or government representatives or Crown corporation

representatives have said: "Work must resume." What do you do if the

workers don't go back to work'?

I think I used this a couple of months ago in debate on this

same bill, when I quoted John L. Lewis. When he was told that the army

would be sent in to make the coal-miners dig coal in the States during

the war, he said: "You can't mine

[ Page 1957 ]

coal with bayonets." Neither can you put a couple of hundred

thousand miners back to work if they're determined not to go to work.

Workers in British Columbia have a long history of fighting employers

and fighting government. It took the army, in 1913, to deal with the

coal-miners in Nanaimo, and deal with them they did. But they didn't

get them back mining coal. They controlled the situation in Nanaimo,

but they certainly didn't get them back digging.

[3:15]

Force doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. Certainly in our society it

doesn't work. But cooperation can work, and that's the kind of

cooperation that the employers and employees have been able to put into

effect with respect to essential services in the province of British

Columbia; in some cases, not even just essential services.

There's the famous example of the contract that the then

Premier W.A.C. Bennett negotiated on behalf of B.C. Hydro for work on

the Peace River dam, when there was a no-strike clause for the duration

of the contract. It didn't matter what else was going on in

labour-management negotiations in the province at that time, because

the workers had contracted to keep on working on that project for the

duration of the project. They kept working. Workers will live up to

their side of the agreement if they are consulted, if they are a party

to the agreement, and if they believe that in negotiating that

agreement they're being dealt with truthfully, reasonably and fairly.

That's cooperation, Mr. Speaker. That is what we thought the Premier

was talking about during the election campaign when he spoke about a

"new era."

I think all of us have been trying from the very beginning —

some of us in different ways, and some of us with different examples —

to get across that message: the kind of cooperation and consultation

that the Premier talked about is what we need; workers in B.C. have

proven that they will cooperate if they are consulted; we can maintain

essential services by entering into agreements ahead of time. But there

is a tremendous amount of misinformation, I believe, particularly on

the government side of the House.

There was one example of that this morning when the member for

Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) was speaking in this debate. He brought

Manitoba into it, and certainly government members are very anxious to

bring Manitoba into almost every debate where they think it will

support their cause. But unfortunately they don't always tell the whole

truth, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting they're not telling the truth;

I'm saying they don't tell the whole truth. In this instance, the

member for Yale-Lillooet said: "One of the things it did was bring in

final-offer selection policy. Yet four years ago in that very House,

the opposition at that time, which is now the government, went on

record as being opposed to this concept." He's talking about Manitoba's

Bill 61,

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, which does include

final-offer selection.

MR. S.D. SMITH: For both sides?

MR. STUPICH: I'm quoting the member. He

doesn't say both sides; I'm just telling you what he said. It's a

quotation, so I'd better not accept your amendment. I'll simply quote

from him, and he said that the bill includes final-offer selection:

"Yet four years ago in that very House, the opposition at that time,

which is now the government, went on record as being opposed to this

concept."

On the question of consultation, the member said that the

meeting 24 hours prior to the legislation being introduced was a

briefing on the legislation, not consultation. The member left the

strong impression that there was no consultation. That sounds pretty

bad on the face of it.

Let's go a little further. One. Bill 61 in Manitoba does

include a provision of final-offer selection. I can't deal with your

question; I don't know the answer. Number two, four years ago the

opposition was — it still is — Progressive Conservative; it's the NDP

that's in office today. I don't know what the Progressive Conservatives

did four years ago, but the NDP were not in opposition four years ago.

I know that. In 1984, a labour law review study written by Marg Smith

was circulated, which proposed final-offer selection in Manitoba. At

their last convention in 1985, the Manitoba Federation of Labour called

for final-offer selection with unfettered right to strike. That

position has been represented in every brief received by the Manitoba

government since then — two years ago. They have been asking for it

ever since.

The Manitoba government didn't rush into it. The process of

labour relations reform in Manitoba has been a studied, leisurely

process, because the government recognizes the need to ensure a

consensus. The member for Yale-Lillooet would do a greater service to

himself and to the House — as would many others — if he or they were

less selective and more accurate in their speeches. Bill 61 in Manitoba

will be referred to a select standing committee of the House, likely

this evening, which committee will have the power to call witnesses.

That's one of the arguments we've been making with respect to this

legislation: that it should have been referred to a select standing

committee which would have had the power to call witnesses.

Much can be done by cooperation, by consultation, by sitting

down and working out agreements. Both sides will live up to those

agreements if they feel they're a party to a real bargaining process.

Little can be accomplished in our community. In some jurisdictions.

yes, there is that authority; but in our community, with our long

history of democracy and with the organizations and people that we

have, little can be accomplished by driving people and telling them

what they must do. Much by consultation and by cooperation; nothing by

more divisiveness. more argument, more problems for our already

stressed economy.

There is a right way to go. Once this is finished — and it

will soon be over — the government should say: "We've shown what we can

do. We have the power; we have the legislative authority. But we're

going to give labour and management six months to sort out their act

and see if they can do a better job than this legislation would do."

All of us are asking for that consideration on the part of government.

There is no hurry. There is no need for any immediate action. But there

is a grand and glorious golden opportunity for this government to lead

the way out of the mess — which they've gotten us into, true: but also

it would be a real challenge to labour and management to see if they

couldn't do something really great for British Columbia. We plead with

the government to announce publicly, once this bill has become law,

that it will not be proclaimed for six months, to give the community

time to get its act together.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 1958 ]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I am new to this

House, and for the last 11 weeks I have been listening to and

participating in a debate on Bill 19. I have heard 100 hours of debate

and read an incredible amount about labour-management relationships in

this province. When the bill was first introduced, as a new member of

this House I thought perhaps it was a bargaining position assumed by

the government side to soften the union side. As the debate proceeded,

it occurred to me that it wasn't a bargaining position, but perhaps the

government side of the House simply didn't understand the bill and the

depths to which it ripped asunder the social contract, as my colleague

from Vancouver East put it. In the last few weeks, and especially today

as I review these last few months — not just Bill 19 but other acts and

other procedures in the House — I am beginning to understand completely

that this is a bill founded on an ideology which is anathema to

anything we could consider to be constructive towards the social or

economic health of this province.

I read a suggestion today that we aren't being governed, we

are being managed by this government. It would strike me that we aren't

even being managed by this government; rather, we are being driven by

an ideology espoused by this government. When ideology takes over —

when ideology comes first — discussion and consultation disappear. When

ideology comes first, confrontation becomes the order of the day, and

what lies beneath the veneer of the word "confrontation" is basically

confusion, ill will and an inability to discuss any further. I fear

that is where we have come today, after 11 weeks of discussion in this

House, after a careful, frank canvassing of the bill, and after 100

hours of talking and trying to reason.

When ideology comes first, people don't matter anymore, and

that is what I want to speak to this afternoon, because when people

don't matter anymore and what they think doesn't matter anymore, what

we end up doing, and what I fear the government is ending up doing, is

delegitimizing public involvement itself and taking away the rationale

for people to bother getting involved in the first place. I've seen

this happening with Bill 19, as we witnessed a commission, with the

minister on it, circulating through the province to return a report

which, when tabled, was supplanted by Bill 19, which ran in radically

different directions from the report prepared by the minister himself.

Everyone who participated in that consultation process was

delegitimized. Their involvement was discounted.

This business of taking away people's citizenship by telling

them that they don't count has been repeated in Bill 20 and Bill 28;

but most specifically, Bill 19 directly affects 250,000 people and

their families in this province. So you've taken people in their jobs,

in their communities and in their professions, and you've said:

"Whatever your history is, whatever your involvement is, whatever

checks and balances you've made for yourselves in your communities to

adjust to modern living, and whatever you have to say just doesn't

matter and just doesn't count." You can see how that takes people's

perception of themselves and basically turns it into bitterness,

sourness, antagonism and confrontational postures.

It leaves some of us in the position of walking out of the

province. The newspapers for the last two nights have gone on at some

length to describe the numbers of people, particularly those in the

construction trades, who have taken off for happier climes — most

notably to Ontario. Some leave. Some stay to fight, but fighting is

rather difficult when words mean nothing anymore, when consultation

simply isn't there and when the mechanisms have been removed. Some give

up, and perhaps that's the saddest group of all. They become

non-citizens. They are thrust into a new kind of labour market by Bill

19, without any contracts with any meaning, without an incentive to

bargain, without a sense of growing prosperity for themselves or for

their community, and without a sense of them making any difference or

having any say.

So I say that whether it's Bill 19, Bill 20 or Bill 28, what

we're dealing with here — I can see it now, most clearly, after these

four months — is a process of delegitimization of people as citizens.

An ideology is telling people that they don't count and that what does

count is something called the free market economy, something ironic in

its concept because there is neither a freedom nor a market — a market

is a place where more than one person convenes to bargain — or an

economy to speak of. Worse still, Bill 19 has taken us further than

even the delegitimization of citizenship. It has entered into an area

of actual punishment, when as a result of legitimate dissent in the

community we have labelling going on that calls citizens seditious,

that suggests they are treasonous, un-Canadian or uncitizen-like by

this government and by this ideology.

The picture that starts to evolve is one of citizens as

automatons, robots, low-wage-earners, non-thinking, uneducated and

unskilled people, basically doing what your ideology wants them to do —

to fit like cogs into a machine that your ideology is trying to build.

The population will be ripe. It will be the fodder for the

ideology that your nineteenth century mentors would like to see. Where

will these entrepreneurs come from that our children — your fodder —

will fit into? I tell you, the bell is tolling for B.C. daily, because

your ideology doesn't recognize that no man is an island. Your

ideology doesn't recognize you can't stand alone. Your ideology doesn't

know that the consent of, the governed is what's required in order to

carry it out.

So I would suggest to this government that you not send to

know for whom the bell tolls, because it's tolling for British Columbia

right now; it's tolling for our children.

[3:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I stand like

the rest of the members in the opposition to support the hoist motion.

In a way, it's a very sad, desperate time for all of us here. I find it

difficult in that I feel that sadness, and at the same time I feel a

great deal of anger.

I want to talk a little bit about the history that's gone

before this bill. In a way, like many of the previous speakers, I'd

like to caution the government. While we have repeatedly tried to point

out to the government where the problems lie in this legislation, and

repeatedly tried to give voice to many of the concerns that are

expressed by people in our community and by working people around this

province, the government has chosen not to listen to date.

While we have repeatedly asked the government to postpone the

adoption of this legislation and involve itself in a process of true,

meaningful consultation, the government has decided in its wisdom to

ignore those calls. I'd like to remind the minister that one of our

previous speakers had pointed out that while we have spoken for over

100 hours on this legislation trying to bring those things to the

government's attention, quite frankly, if the government chooses to

ignore, it chooses to ignore at its own peril.

[ Page 1959 ]

I want to remind the government of what has gone on in this

province over the last four or five years. This province has seen a

government under Bill Bennett bring in legislation that was as

disruptive and as confrontational as this. We saw people throughout the

province at the brink of a general strike, picketing and marching,

people who had never been involved in such protests before. We saw the

defeat of that government before it went to the polls. We saw Bill

Bennett resigning because of the pressure that the people of this

province brought to bear on your government.

What we saw was borne out by the public record. It was borne

out by the polls that were done before the last election. I think it is

very clear that the Premier was pushed because the Social Credit Party

recognized that there would be no reelection of your government if they

did not change at least their face. You went to the electorate with a

new leader. You went to the polls last fall promising consultation,

promising a new start, promising the things that the people in this

province were looking for — ironically, the things that the New

Democrats had been talking about a year before the election, the things

in the campaign we built when we defeated the previous Social Credit

government under Bill Bennett. You took our platform and you promised

that to the people with the populist campaign that saw the Premier and

his wife dancing and singing in the middle of the desperation that

people were feeling around the wounds inflicted upon them under the

government's cruel restraint program — the wounds that the people of

this province felt, right down to the very reality of trying to care

for their families.

What we saw when this government came in with the budget and

the throne speech was the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) getting up and saying: "We care about families in this

province. We care about the people that have suffered under the

restraint program. We care about the recipients of welfare." Then we

had Bills 19 and 20: a replay of the previous Bennett government's

legislative package, a replay of the confrontation that we have seen in

this province over the last three or four years and, ironically, the

very targeting of those people that this government professed to be

wanting to help. Again and again the members on this side have pointed

out how unnecessary this whole process is; that if indeed the intent is

to get this province back on the road to economic recovery, and if, as

this bill professes, the intent is towards labour and management peace,

then there are better ways.

The earlier speaker from Nanaimo pointed out some of those

better ways. He talked about what real consultation could mean. There

are many examples throughout the world of governments that have brought

in legislation as a document for consultation, that have gone out with

a proposal and talked to the people and involved the people that will

be affected, in working out legislation that has the consensus and the

support of all the parties involved. The government has chosen not to

do that. It is very hard, I think; and certainly what I've been hearing

from many in my constituency who voted for Social Credit last time

around is that they feel betrayed. That is what's going on here. We

have a government that promised one thing and is bringing in another, a

government that is centralizing power and hitting the very people that

can least defend themselves.

We've gone through this legislation, and we've looked at

exactly who this legislation affects. We've talked about how it affects

the people that have the most to lose in our society, their inability

to organize with fellow workers to get a fairer shake in the economic

picture. We talked about how it's affecting women, and how this

legislation makes it difficult if not impossible for women to get the

pay increases that are necessary to just give them equal footing,

equal-pay legislation.

We talked about the impact of technological change in our

society and how this government, through this legislation, is again

making the playing-field unequal and inaccessible to the working people

of this province. In light of the history that has gone on in this

province, and in light of the kinds of promises that this government

brought to the last election, this legislation is deceptive, and I am

sorrowed by that.

I think that there are ways in which we can begin to

productively deal with some of the problems that have been created, not

only by this government but also by the previous Social Credit

government — by truly respecting the players that this legislation

purports to act on behalf of, by truly respecting individuals in this

province and allowing them a meaningful place in the decision-making

process. That should be undertaken. There are other ways, and we've

spoken of those. They all start with the initial concept of respect —

respecting the working people of this province, instead of centralizing

and using a big stick, which I think this legislation does.

I'd like to just leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, and again ask

the government to consider delaying putting this bad legislation into

law; and instead of threatening the people who are trying their best in

this province, working with them and supporting them.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, for more than

100 hours — longer than any other single debate in this House on a

piece of legislation — a debate has taken place that has sought to

bring a measure of understanding and common sense to the government of

the day. For all that we have heard about this government's desire to

listen and to cooperate with this side of the House, and to listen and

cooperate with the people of British Columbia, we are still left, after

all of that, with a radical and confrontational piece of legislation

that threatens to move this province's management-labour relations back

into the Dark Ages.

Our party has spoken out against this legislation. I and other

members of this caucus have spoken out against this legislation — and

we've listened. I've met dozens of men and women throughout British

Columbia, and I personally have received thousands of letters from

people who are speaking out against Bill 19. Yet this government

persists.

I lament the missed opportunities of a Premier who missed the

historic moment to fulfil his campaign promise of a fresh start. I want

the Premier to recall his own words last September 24, when he said:

"Main Street British Columbians want an end to partisan warfare. They

want to set aside the sectoral strife which has become the unhappy

hallmark of British Columbia." Mr. Speaker, the Premier was right. The

Premier once had a glimpse of the people of British Columbia's

weariness with confrontation and bitterness. Yet he did not have the

vision to grasp the mandate he was given by the people of British

Columbia — a glimpse without vision.

[3:45]

There are two examples of that glimpse and missed vision that

have occurred right here in this Legislature. The first is that the

Premier has cooperated with me and our caucus to develop a meaningful

democratic process with a responsible opposition. That's the glimpse of

what could have happened.

[ Page 1960 ]

The missed vision is Bill 19. Our Legislature has improved. I

think all of us here would proudly be able to go to our constituencies

and say that. Teachers no longer have to shield children's ears when

they bring them here on a school visit. Visitors don't have to be

hustled out of the visitors' galleries when we get into question period

and debate.

We should congratulate each other for what we're doing here:

our caucus Chairs, our House Whips, our debate leaders are setting a

tone of respect for our differences. We have established — or are

establishing — a board of internal economy so that our caucuses and

Legislature can serve the people of our province properly. Our Speaker

is working well with our Clerks, who are among the most knowledgeable

in our parliamentary system, to have our Legislature be a forum to

celebrate and debate our differences, to reaffirm the strength of our

democratic system of government. I would like to have seen the Premier

go beyond that glimmer, but he didn't. He threw away his mandate with

Bill 19, which symbolizes the broken promises, the confrontation, the

sham consultation, the extremism, the intolerance, the incompetence

that the Premier will be remembered by in his brief reign.

I was sitting in church on Sunday with my mother and father

listening to our minister, Rev. Bob Smith, the past Moderator of the

United Church of Canada, who was conducting a special service about

justice for our native brothers and sisters. There were hymns from the

Dakotas. There was a reading by Rev. Smith's daughter of Chief

Seattle's response to the President of the United States, who said: "We

want your lands." Rev. Smith was showing some of the young people of

our church, who were being presented their own Bibles after completing

grade 3 of Sunday school, a symbolic canoe paddle that he had received

from a native carver here in British Columbia.

When he had concluded his comments and the ceremony, we heard

a sermon from Rev. Smith about the authority of the church to make

statements about native self-government, about aboriginal title, and

about Bill 19. He showed the process that the church goes through to

develop these positions and the authority that that vests with the

spokesperson for the United Church of Canada, who on Friday spoke out

against Bill 19. It struck me, Mr. Speaker, that that is what's

missing: the authority to introduce this bill. This government has the

right to govern but it doesn't have the authority to introduce this

piece of legislation. It shows how the Premier has blown his mandate

and blown his opportunity. Bill 19 demonstrates that. The Premier may

have the power; he may have the stubbornness; he may have the numbers

of MLAs when we take the vote. He may have the apologists in the Social

Credit Party, in business and in the media who say: "Give the bill a

chance. Don't be negative. Trade unions can make or break this bill."

Very sly and crafty in laying out the extremist views and strategies

that back up this bill, but the Premier lacks the authority to do what

he's doing here to British Columbians. He has no mandate for Bill 19.

And the majority of British Columbians disagree with the government's

introduction of this bill — not just mildly, but profoundly disagree

with this bill.

We in the NDP have told you why we believe Bill 19 is

untenable, unworkable. It's a bad and unjust law. It is anti trade

union; we pointed that out in

section 25 — the doublebreasting that

that would bring about. It's an undemocratic interference in a

democratic innovation over many decades: free collective bargaining.

We've said that

Part 8.1 is a massive intervention in that process.

We've said that Bill 19 condones and legalizes exploitation of the

working people of this province and gives employers a stacked deck to

deal with their employees. We've said this many times. Colin Gabelmann,

our labour critic — the member for North Island — has said it many

times. Members of our caucus have spoken extensively to point out in

detail why this bill is bad, why it's unjust, why it won't work. Yet

the Premier and his caucus have chosen to ignore the restrained,

measured and informed response led by our labour critic and others in

our caucus.

The Premier has pushed aside a new generation of leaders in

this province. He has taken the glimpse of a new vision of

labour-management relations in this province, and he has forced people

back to the old bad days of confrontation. He had an opportunity for a

fresh start. The Pacific Institute of Industrial Policy.... Ken

Georgetti, the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour, took a lot of

risk in sitting down with Jim Matkin of the B.C. Business Council and

Darcy Rezac of the Vancouver Board of Trade and developing this totally

new innovation in Canada, and putting it forward in public as a show of

the kind of cooperation that the labour movement and the business

community had worked out and were prepared to go with.

The Premier pushed that aside with Bill 19. He pushed aside

the possibility of up to $10 billion in pension funds being invested

throughout British Columbia in an enthusiastic, well-thought-out,

cooperative way to rebuild our economy. He pushed aside trade union

leaders joining trade missions to help sell our coal, our forest

products, our services, our tourism and the potential to diversify our

economy.

He lost the chance to modernize the labour relations act in

the true spirit of cooperation. The Premier has chosen to be wilfully

blind and to ignore the New Democratic Party's genuine attempts to help

bring about labour-management cooperation. He has chosen to

misrepresent the trade union leaders' unparalleled attempts to persuade

him to step back from Bill 19. He has chosen to pass over the

entreaties of other leaders of our community and to force people back

into a confrontational stance. Over and over again, the leaders of our

province have said: "Step back." The Sun , the Province , the Times-Colonist ,

the Globe and Mail and other

newspapers — their editorialists, columnists and reporters have said

over and over again: "It's a bad law; it won't work."

MR. WILLIAMS: The best and the brightest.

MR. HARCOURT: Don't go too far.

The TV commentators and reporters. BCTV has extensive polling

that shows that three-quarters of British Columbians want this motion

to pass. Step back. Jack Webster, the most experienced journalist and

labour reporter in Canada, says that this bill isn't going to fly. It's

not going to work.

Radio reporters and commentators, people like Rafe Mair and

many others on CKNW, have said it won't work.

The business community. Jim Matkin expressed huge reservations

about this bill. His predecessor, Bill Hamilton, the

ex-Postmaster-General and head of the Employers' Council of British

Columbia, says it won't work. The Cominco board of directors and, on

top of that, the people who have to try to make it work — the

arbitrators, the labour-management lawyers who have got to try to make

this bad piece of legislation work — like Bruce McColl and Jim Dorsey

and Chuck McVeigh, have said it won't work.

[ Page 1961 ]

Your ex-Deputy Minister of Labour, Graham Leslie, whom I

worked with for a number of years as the mayor of Vancouver, an

alderman and a private sector employer, said that it won't work, that

it will have a huge confrontational impact on B.C., that the process

was deceitful. The Premier's own Minister of Labour, after listening to

many people — an extensive process where he went around the province

and very sincerely listened to people, with 700 different briefs — said

in his report: "Any law without the support or at least the

acquiescence of the majority of those whom it purports to affect will

inevitably be opposed."

This opposition will guarantee, in this case, the failure of

the larger objective. Bill 19 will fail. So you have the New Democratic

Party, working people in this province, business, media, religious

leaders: the United Church B.C. Conference opposed Bill 19; the

Anglican Church, the archbishop, opposed Bill 19; the Catholic Church

and many other spokespeople opposed Bill 19; the Pentecostal Church

spokesman opposed Bill 19.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the Premier. You will fail,

sir, because you lack the authority for Bill 19 — not to govern, but to

impose this bill for which you did not seek a mandate. You broke your

promises. You will reap the whirlwind of bitterness and discontent. You

will deepen the despair of confrontation, and along with that you will

reap the political consequences, which will be negative for you, Mr.

Premier.

I'd like to have been able to tell the Premier, who has been

here for one minute and 50 seconds of this debate.... I would have

liked to have seen him here for a bit more than that. I don't think

that instant scrums outside of this Legislature are where the debate

should take place; it should be here. I would have liked to have seen

him here for more than 110 seconds, to be involved in this piece of

secretive legislation that he has put together. I would have told him,

if he had been here, that he has glimpsed a small bit of what the

people of government desperately want and need: that is, to restore the

dignity, civility and importance not just of our Legislature but of our

economic labour-management relations.

Mr. Speaker, our lament is that the Premier could not see the

larger picture for stability and prosperity and have the generosity of

spirit that the people of British Columbia expected. That is why we are

asking the Premier to step back now and seize this opportunity to hoist

Bill 19 before it's too late for our people. There's no hurry; 1987 is

a quiet year. There are no major negotiations; 95 percent of our

disputes will be resolved anyway, and most of the others — the 5

percent, the small strike or lockout.... There's no hurry, Mr. Premier.

Do the right thing and reconsider this fatally flawed, confrontational

bill. At this moment we can only hope that you will.

Mr. Speaker, it now rests with the Premier to make the right

decision and hoist Bill 19.

[4:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

NAYS — 39

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Reid

Dueck

Richmond

Michael

Parker

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Veitch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Vander Zalm

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Johnston

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Long

Huberts

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

MR. SPEAKER: The question now is third

reading of Bill 19. Pursuant to standing orders, I should advise the

House that if the minister speaks he will close debate.

HON. L. HANSON: I have heard mentioned over

the last few days that the time we have spent debating this bill is

something over 100 hours, and there have been suggestions that that is

probably a new record. I think that's very appropriate. This bill is so

important to British Columbia and its future economic welfare that it's

right that we spent that time on it.

When we see the results of this legislation, when it's in

place and working, all of British Columbia, and certainly the members

of the opposition. will realize and understand how important it is to

British Columbia to have better industrial relations. This bill will,

in fact. bring them in place.

There are so many things that we've done in this legislation.

We've ensured that there is democracy in the workplace. We've ensured

that there is freedom of speech. We've ensured that people are

protected from unfair labour practices. We've ensured that there is

fair representation for workers. We have ensured that union membership

rights are protected, and we have ensured that there is a freedom of

association in the workplace.

We've also ensured, for those people who are voting on the

issues that are so vital to their economic health and welfare, that it

is done in a manner that is secret and democratic. We've enhanced the

role of mediation. We've created a central information bank. We've

repealed the CSP and the Essential Service Disputes Act. We have given

the teachers the right to bargain not only their wages but also their

working conditions.

We've created a productivity fund that we believe in the year

to come will prove one of the greatest benefits to British Columbia

that we have seen for some time. We are not deunionizing British

Columbia, and there is nothing in this bill that says we are.

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on Bill 19 I'd like to

address some of the concerns raised by the succession of opposition

speakers over the past weeks. For example, there is nothing in Bill 19

which diminishes the right to strike. The right to strike is entrenched

in the legislation. What is not entrenched, and never will be, is the

concept that the rights of the minority prevail over the rights of the

majority. The right to strike, Mr. Speaker, remains intact, but

certainly not at the cost of British Columbia's economy and the

well-being of its people. As for the concerns raised about the

compensation stabilization plan — the son of compensation

stabilization, as

[ Page 1962 ]

I believe it has been referred to — I would like to point out

that there is no reason at all in this legislation that the parties

cannot arrive at any settlement that they can agree on. There will be

no reflection of the ability to pay, nor will there be a reflection of

the public interest that is part of the arbitrated settlements.

The opposition says three million days were lost to strikes in

1986, and they compare that to Ontario and Quebec. That may well be,

but I would like to point out to this House that comparisons to Ontario

and Quebec are not really correct, because Ontario and Quebec are not

our competitors. Our true competitors are Scandinavian countries and

Pacific Rim countries such as Japan.

One after the other, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite

have risen to denounce this bill as radical and reactionary. The truth

of the matter is that much that the critics have been opposing in this

bill so strenuously has existed in our law for many years. For example,

the Legislature has always had the power to order interest arbitration

and final-offer votes. In short, the Legislature has always had the

power to dictate the terms of a collective agreement under certain

conditions. In Bill 19 we have codified that power so that it can

be invoked to protect British Columbians against harmful labour

disputes

when the Legislature is not in session.

The IRC will monitor a dispute from the very beginning, and

thus be in a better position to take the appropriate action. The

Legislature determines only whether intervention by the IRC is

appropriate, and that the nature of that intervention is left to the

IRC.

Finally, where the Mediation Commission was limited only to

court-style rulings, the IRC has many less formal tools available to

assist the parties to reach a mutually agreeable collective agreement.

I'd like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if this sounds like an

intervention-oriented system. The verbs used to describe the disputes

resolution division are "monitor," "assist," "inquire" and "administer." Are these the descriptions of a system designed to

suffocate collective bargaining? I think not, and I think most people

in British Columbia would agree with that.

Many of the Bill 19 provisions already exist in both the

Labour Code and the Essential Service Disputes Act. For example, under

the Labour Code the minister may recommend that cabinet order a 40-day

cooling-off period; under the Essential Service Disputes Act, cabinet

may order a 90day cooling-off period; under Bill 19, the minister may

order a 40-day cooling-off period. During these cooling-off periods,

for example, the restricted activities in the Labour Code and in the

Essential Service Disputes Act are exactly the same as they are in Bill

19. Some provisions of Bill 19 have evolved solely from the existing

Labour Code; for example, the public interest inquiry board. The Labour

Code may authorize the minister to establish industrial inquiry

commissions, which are structurally and conceptually identical to the

proposed public interest inquiry board. So that's not totally new

either.

[4:15]

In other cases, Bill 19 reflects provisions which appear only

in the Essential Service Disputes Act. I will grant that the Bill 19

provisions are applied to all employers,

whereas the Essential Service

Disputes Act related only to public sector employers. But the point I'm

trying to make is that Bill 19 is not new and revolutionary. Much of it

has had the power of law in this province for many years. Special

mediators, fact-finders and interest arbitration exist at this moment

in essential services legislation. The factors to be considered in

interest arbitration are exactly the same in the Essential Service

Disputes Act as they are in Bill 19, and there are many other

similarities.

I would like to urge each and every member of this House to

encourage British Columbians everywhere to cooperate with Bill 19. With

it, we will at last have the opportunity for a peaceful labour

relations atmosphere for job creation and for a better economic future.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, the Industrial Relations Reform Act

launches British Columbia into a new labour relations era, an era in

which an improved labour relations climate can make a substantial

contribution to economic recovery and job growth in our province.

Bill 19 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Savage

Rogers

L. Hanson

Reid

Dueck

Richmond

Michael

Parker

Loenen

Crandall

De Jong

Rabbitt

Dirks

Mercier

Veitch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Vander Zalm

B.R. Smith

Couvelier

Johnston

R. Fraser

Weisgerber

Jansen

Hewitt

Gran

Chalmers

Mowat

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Long

Huberts

Messmer

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

NAYS — 22

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Harcourt

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr.

Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to resume on the

issue of South Moresby. As I notified the minister, I would like to

finish the debate today on wilderness and parks. Of course, that will

depend on our ability to get some of the business dealt with.

[ Page 1963 ]

Much of the debate around South Moresby at this point is

around the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments.

While most of the discussion has centred around compensation and the

government's sincerity in these negotiations, I want to emphasize, in

opening the debate, that this issue is much broader than purely an

issue of compensation. This is an issue of the preservation of an area

in the world that has no replica. The importance of preserving such an

area has got to be seen as paramount; it has got to be recognized that

in itself it is perhaps more important than quibbling over the dollar

value; that the recognition of the Haida and their ancestry has to be

dealt with. We will continue to try to pressure the government into

recognizing that.

I know that several other members in the opposition want to

deal with issues that revolve around the negotiations, and I would like

to let them go ahead at this time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the

House what his view is of the involvement of the Haida, if this is to

be a provincial park?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure, but I will respond

to the critic first and then comment on that, if the committee doesn't

mind.

First of all, with respect to the negotiations, as we all

know, there was a phone call last night from the Prime Minister to the

Premier at 8:30. The Prime Minister indicated he would like to continue

discussions. We, of course, had indicated last week that we wanted to

leave the door open until Wednesday, our next cabinet meeting; that is,

tomorrow. The Premier has further indicated that the door is still open.

With respect to our position and what we have done, I think

the committee must recognize that in our discussions with the federal

government we have always had a fallback position to the Wilderness

Advisory Committee recommendation No. 3, and we have followed that

recommendation to a T. I should point out that that recommendation and

the recommendation that we will put in place, if we fail to reach

agreement on a national park, will be a park of 105,000 hectares, about

85 percent of what the federal government wanted.

It will protect the viewscapes from Anthony Island, Burnaby

Narrows, Juan Perez Sound — as defined by the present recreation

reserve — Darwin Sound, the north side and the islands of Skincuttle

Inlet, and Huston Inlet. It is quite a remarkable park. There is just

no question about that. What we have intended to not alienate for park

purposes are the very productive islands on the east side of the

archipelago.

I will state again that we reckon the annual allowable cut

from that area to be $40 million to $50 million annually. This is

arrived at quite simply by looking at the annual allowable cut — I

believe 237,000 cubic metres per year — and multiplying it by the value

of a cubic metre of wood, which is $200. That's where we begin from a

negotiating point of view when we try to address the economic loss to

British Columbia, if we go with the total park that Mr. McMillan has

requested of us.

There was a comment — and I would like to state this

parenthetically.... The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

tabled an affidavit yesterday submitted by Frank Beban, indicating that

he had testified at one point or other that the value of wood to him

was $57 per cubic metre. That is quite correct; there is no question

about that. Then the member further inquired how we could establish a

value of $200 per cubic metre.

[4:30]

Well, what the member failed to consider is that $57 is only

Mr. Behan's revenue. There is revenue from transportation, from

sawmilling, from pulp mills, from supplies and services, from all the

employment; that's why the standard of forest economists is to value a

cubic metre of wood to the economy of British Columbia at $200. As a

matter of fact, the average sale price alone is $133 per cubic metre,

and that doesn't even take into account the multiplier effect of

supplies and services.

So $200 per cubic metre is a standard that is accepted by the

forest industry, and one I am not going to argue with; others might.

Nevertheless, that's the figure we are dealing with, and I don't

question it. I don't think we should set that aside. We have to

consider it in any of our negotiations.

With respect to the question about the Haida, the Wilderness

Advisory Committee does recommend that consultation should occur. I am

advised by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) that he has had officials attend there in the last little

while. I can't advise you what those consultations concluded, and it

would be inappropriate for me to comment further, since that type of

consultation discussion is carried out under the auspices of the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. It would be anticipatory of me

to comment further on administrative actions within his ministry.

I believe that answers the questions that have been posed to

this point.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister

could advise the House what compensation the government will be paying

when it establishes the provincial park.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Compensation to whom?

MR. WILLIAMS: You're ready to compensate

everybody and anything that moves when it comes to the federal

government paying the bill. What are you willing to pay, in terms of

various alienations and rights with respect to the remainder of the

South Moresby archipelago?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you're asking about

the TFL, we have the TFL that would be in the proposed provincial park.

We have been advised by the Wilderness Advisory Committee that the

figure could be up to $8 million — and we do have that money on the

table. But the majority of the remaining TFL would be outside the

provincial park. So our figure would be a maximum of $8 million. That's

a recommendation from the WAC.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister then saying

that those volumes times $200 a cubic metre is the amount you want in

compensation for the provincial park?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The figure of $8 million

is the assessment that has been suggested by us by the WAC. But don't

forget that the WAC never contemplated the huge resource in the eastern

parts of the island. That's why we arrive at the compensation figure —

using a standard in the industry of $200 per cubic metre.

[ Page 1964 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Shall we tango? Come on! That

one doesn't wash, Mr. Minister. I'm sure that if you check out the

numbers — and I'll do that — $200 times the volume in the provincial

park will be substantially more than the $8 million you talk about. So

there it is. You've got one standard of compensation by provincial

taxpayers if it's a provincial park, and you've got a second standard

of compensation if it's a federal park. It's a double game you're

playing. Sure, 85 percent of it, you say, is going to be in a

provincial park — and that's $8 million worth. Come on! It doesn't fit

at all.

If there's a provincial park, are you ready and willing to

spend $50 million on developing the tourism infrastructure that's

necessary in the Queen Charlottes to make this fully the asset that it

can be?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, and neither is the

federal government.

MR. WILLIAMS: That isn't what Mr.

Mazankowski's letter says, Madam Chairman. It says $50 million over ten

years, to establish the infrastructure in terms of roads, cultural

assets and a range of facilities — small business enhancement and the

like. Is this administration prepared to do equal...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't see how on

earth, within a national park, where you have very, very restricted

development, he could spend that type of money, without turning it into

a Disneyland. And why on earth would he want to?

MR. WILLIAMS: There are other items: a

visitor centre in Sandspit, a visitor centre in Queen Charlotte City

and facilities on South Moresby. But in addition, they perceived the

need in the rest of the Queen Charlotte Islands for development

activity, to bring it up to some sort of standard in terms of modem

tourist facilities, infrastructure and the like. So the $50 million was

not seen as within the park archipelago but in the major islands —

Graham and the island to the south. So we're asking, Mr. Minister: is

this government prepared to spend equal dollars in building the

infrastructure on the islands outside the park?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We would have a smaller

commitment from the parks branch of the provincial ministry. But don't

forget that we wouldn't alienate all the employment that a federal park

would. We wouldn't turn Sandspit into a ghost town, as you're

recommending. We wouldn't turf out the people who work for Frank Beban

Logging. We wouldn't shut down shifts in pulp mills and sawmills

because of the lack of fibre supply. It's interesting. This is the

first time in my history I've heard the opposition argue for

unemployment. It's remarkable.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's talk about jobs, Mr.

Minister. There are 70 jobs there. They're itinerant loggers; they're

not full-time inhabitants of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They've got a school

there and everything.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes, but many of them are

from the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. The federal

government says 370 jobs would result from establishing the federal

park. That's 370 jobs versus 70. They're talking about 3,700

person-years in terms of this exercise. You people don't seem to be

willing to concede significant activity, and you talk about all of

these downstream, value-added jobs that are tied to logging in the Queen

Charlottes, Mr. Minister,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have you heard of

sawmills and things like that?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have heard of pulp

mills; I have heard of sawmills. I wonder if the minister knows that we

actually export logs from British Columbia. I wonder if he knows that

he was part of the cabinet that designated all of the Queen Charlottes,

all of the mid-coast, everything back of the Alaska panhandle as log

export territory in British Columbia — an area the size of France or

something like that.

If you want those jobs in British Columbia, you keep those raw

materials in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister knows we now

export chips out of British Columbia, the main feed for sawmills.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, dismiss it. All of the

southern interior, from your riding south, is exporting chips from the

province right now. It doesn't fit. We're talking about a log exporting

economy; you're talking about $200 a cubic metre.

That assumes that we've got furniture factories; that assumes

that we've got sawmills; that assumes that we've got pulp mills. That

doesn't assume the reality of the Queen Charlottes, which are being

gutted for log export, which are a raw material supplier for the

Pacific Rim. The most valuable logs in British Columbia are today being

exported. The best logs of the Charlottes are being exported. The best

logs from the mid-coast and back to the panhandle are all being

exported on a scale unprecedented in the history of British Columbia.

You can't use the $200 number, Mr. Minister.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, is he

addressing the questions to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) or to the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker)?

We're here for the estimates of the Minister of Environment and Parks.

He is not being relevant to the ministry.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The

Chair feels that the remarks being made are in order. Would the first

member for Vancouver East please continue?

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister has indicated

that significantly less would be spent if a provincial park were

established. Can the minister advise us what sort of budget he would

then see in terms of infrastructure in the islands in terms of

visitors' facilities in Queen Charlotte city and Sandspit and in South

Moresby, and in terms of employment of the Haida?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't have a figure as

yet, and I guess that would be anticipating next year's budget.

Firstly, if we stay with the provincial park and we continue the

resource activity that we have on the eastern islands of the

archipelago, Sandspit can get along very, very well with that

[ Page 1965 ]

economic activity. That's why Sandspit is alive and well now,

simply because of economic activity.

You don't need to inject any more cash into Sandspit which,

under the federal proposal, would become a ghost town. That is the

supply economy for Sandspit, and if the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Miller) wants to comment, he can.

The member mentioned tourism activity. First of all, the

tourism period there is eight to ten weeks per year. That can't be

denied.

AN HON. MEMBER: Same as Pacific Rim.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pacific Rim, by the way,

didn't get paid for for about 15 years. That's what bothered us there.

In any event, the tourism activity in that area, which is quite

inhospitable for the majority of the year, is eight to ten weeks. Any

economic activity as a result of tourism would be extremely seasonal

and would not in any way come close to the economic benefit of

continued harvesting on the areas we've defined as being outside the

park.

MR. WILLIAMS: But at the same time there's

compensation being paid. So that's that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good. You admit to it.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, you talk about

compensation being paid, and then you dismiss it. Then you want to

start comparing apples and oranges after the exercise. I don't really

think you can do that.

This administration is going back to the federal government

now. I guess you're asking for more. There have been some interesting

offers of more. One of them came from Canada's outstanding author,

Margaret Atwood. She indicated she was prepared to offer the government

of this province, because it was holding these lands to ransom, $1,000

— adding to the compensation you're demanding. Are you prepared to

accept Margaret Atwood's offer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if the federal

government is going to enter into agreement with us for the large park

that they've requested, I think her money would be better off delivered

to them; they would be paying the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think she wanted to save

the stamp, since it would clearly be transferred to British Columbia,

and in the mails these days, one never knows.

Is the minister also talking about compensation to the

individual loggers involved in the area? Could he elaborate on that?

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you for the

question, Mr. Member. When we established that it would be part of our

proposal to Canada that they should bring in a national accounting firm

of some national prominence to determine the loss that will occur for

the working men and women displaced from Lyell Island, we said that,

number one. there has to be fair and adequate compensation for the

employees of Frank Beban Logging, especially the older people who may

be reaching retirement. There should be some sort of retirement package

built into that — whatever fair personnel practices in industry are. In

terms of the loggers laid off on March 17, when we offered the

moratorium, we've said that those people had to be considered from that

date — March 17 — and that was in our package.

We further said that the independent determination should

include a severance package, and we'll accept whatever standard

industry practices there are in the case of a fellow who's been with a

company for 20 years and may not find other employment — one month per

year, or whatever. That's not our suggestion, but we thought that the

standards normally accepted in industry would apply, and I think they

are fairly easy to determine.

It was an integral part of our suggestion to the federal

government that, when setting up this independent determination, the

employees of Frank Beban be properly considered. There is not only that

loss of income, but in many cases the cost of relocating them, since

many of them have large mobile homes quite permanently situated there,

and there's a cost to getting them off by barge. That was all built

into our recommendation.

MR. WILLIAMS: The federal government has

indicated an interesting concept of a national park reserve, pending

the outcome of land-claim negotiations with the Haida people. Is that

the same concept that the minister has with respect to the provincial

park?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, ours would be a

provincial park under the Park Act, with some small areas set aside for

recreation areas where there are known mineral claims. I don't know

what the federal government means by a national park reserve. If they

really see it as a reserve, "reserve" normally means a very, very tight

control over the land. If that were in place, I don't see how they

could anticipate the tourism business. It's an interesting concept, but

I think it's one that would be quite improbable to put in place. But

that's just my opinion. Our establishment of a park would be under the

Park Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: But it really is an

interesting beginning in terms of cooperation with the indigenous

people. If one thinks about the tourism potential of the Queen

Charlottes, one can't help but think about the Haida nation as part of

that. One of the great things is to see the work of these people —

their cultural activities, the work of their artisans and artists. They

are producing probably Canada's finest artists today. People like Bill

Reid, Robert Davidson and others are among the country's national

treasures in terms of tremendous artistic abilities. That could be a

unique offering in terms of tourism in the province, in a park where

the Haida people are indelibly a part of the park activity.

Is the minister saying that he is dismissing that option in

terms of really optimizing the tourist potential of that region and

that park, in terms of this provincial structure he sees?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is no question, as

I said earlier. The WAC indicates that consultation with the Haida

nation in other areas.... I'll check this out; I don't have the

documentation, nor do I have the appropriate official with me, but I

think on Anthony Island, which is a provincial reserve, we do involve

the Haidas. I'll advise you further, Mr. Member, when I hear more about

that.

But, no, in provincial parks we involve many people, and would

be.... If South Moresby were a provincial park, obviously the Haida

would be very much involved. I can't

[ Page 1966 ]

see any reason why we wouldn't. You're right, there's a

remarkable culture there, and there's a lot they could assist with and

be part of.

MR. GUNO: Madam Chairman, in response to

our Environment critic's question relating to consultation with the

Haidas, the minister conveyed the impression that some form of

consultation is going on right now. I'm wondering if the minister can

confirm whether or not that consultation has to do with the present

issue relating to the national park.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As Minister of

Environment, and not Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, I can

only advise you that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) told me that an official of his ministry was there last

week discussing it. I haven't heard any report. That might be a more

appropriate question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations,

either in question period or during his estimates. I'll try to find the

information for you, but that's all I can advance at this time: that

officials from the ministry were there last week, as far as I know.

MR. GUNO: I have a more recent report on

the officials' activities in the Queen Charlottes, and this is from a

conversation I had with the president of the Council of the Haida

Nation, Miles Richardson, who informs me that up till two days ago

there had been no contact whatsoever with the Haidas relating to this

particular issue.

You are, I guess, in charge of this whole business. What sort

of consultation with the Haidas are you contemplating? What sort of

things do you see being relevant subjects for discussion?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, really

anything they want to bring to us. If this does become a provincial

park, I'll be more than happy to discuss any initiatives they have.

You'll know from my former ministry that it was my style to discuss

economic and cultural initiatives with the native peoples. I have no

problem with that at all.

MR. GUNO: If the Haidas were also to say

that they are entitled to some form of compensation in alienating their

interests in South Moresby, would you agree that the province would

consider that as an item to be discussed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I regret to tell you

we'd be dealing with another forum in that case, if you're speaking of

a land-claim settlement. I will not comment on that.

MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we're perhaps

breaking some new ground when we discuss the whole issue of

compensation. As far as I'm aware, there are no hard and fast rules

laid down in legislation. There are some references in the Forest Act,

and the minister might want to comment. There has never really been a

test in terms of compensation, what is due, what the obligation of the

province is, what compensation logging companies could reasonably

expect. I am quite surprised when you talk about the compensation that

may be due to individual employees who may be displaced as a result of

a federal park being put into place — and not because I'm opposed to

that. In fact, I'm in favour of it. Having grown up on the coast, I'm

also aware of the sad history of some of the communities that did exist

on the coast of British Columbia that essentially were formed because

of logging.

I spent a few years when I was quite young in a small

community called Beaver Cove, which, to all intents and purposes, no

longer exists. We have to recognize that that has been part of our

history, and there certainly are efforts being made by the leaders in

some communities — for example, Port Clements — to try to have more of

a say in how these TFLs are run in terms of the whole question of

long-term stability of the community.

I'm straying a bit from the Ministry of Environment and Parks,

but that's really the first question. You talk about compensation to

individual employees. I think it should be there. Are you following the

union-negotiated compensation plans that currently exist in the joint

labour agreements covering the forest industry? We had some debate

about those plans in terms of automation and the impact of tech change.

In other words, will severance be given to those employees on that

basis? There needs to be a fuller disclosure of just what the ministry

has planned.

Secondly, what kind of total dollar figure has the minister

contemplated would be required to compensate the individuals who may

require compensation? Thirdly, is the minister saying that 70 people

will require compensation if tomorrow the provincial government comes

to agreement with the federal government on the federal proposal? How

many working people would be liable for compensation? I assume that

there has been some work done in that regard.

Inevitably when you are discussing this issue, you have to

bring in issues that surround it. My colleague from Atlin talked about

discussions with the Haidas. It certainly seems to me to be an

appropriate place to raise those issues that are not really peripheral

but central to the whole debate.

Has the minister done any work, or does he know if the federal

government has done any work, on the kind of benefit that would flow to

the Haidas? I'm thinking particularly of the situation that exists on

the reserves at Skidegate and Masset. There are extremely high levels

of unemployment. I suspect that Masset is probably a little worse off

than Skidegate.

Nonetheless, that is the situation. As the minister should

well be aware, having been the minister responsible for native affairs

in this province, there are some pretty tragic situations that exist in

this province with regard to the lack of economic development, the lack

of opportunities, the really high rates of unemployment and all those

kinds of social problems that are attendant to that situation in native

Indian reserves.

Have you done any work to see what kind of benefit could flow

to the people of the Queen Charlotte Islands in terms of those people

actually finding some opportunities for employment? Regarding South

Moresby, we're well aware on this side of the House that we're not

talking about Hawaii, and I don't think anybody over here has ever

suggested that we are. But there is a body of opinion, and we share it,

that there are significant benefits to preserving the area.

I'm concerned that in doing their economic analysis the

government perhaps has ignored some of the benefits that would flow.

You talk about 70 jobs. God, I've done more in my life to date to fight

for jobs as an active trade unionist than a lot of people. I've not won

too many battles. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, when it came to the pulp

mill deciding, as they did in 1976 under this government, to shut down

an existent pulp mill and lay 300 workers off, I didn't have much

satisfaction when I appealed directly to the Premier to intervene

[ Page 1967 ]

— I had none. The Premier said: "That's the way things are."

Subsequently, when there were further layoffs under an organization

that this government created, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation

badly mismanaged.... Hundreds of jobs were lost for an extended period

of time. We had no satisfaction, Mr. Minister, when it came to

appealing to the government to try to intervene on behalf of the

working people who had been displaced. We couldn't even get the Premier

to intervene and get a small demolition contractor to agree to hire

workers who had been laid off, essentially as a result of a government

decision to shut down an operation employing some 300 workers.

[5:00]

So there's no monopoly, Mr. Minister, in terms of any

political party wanting to protect and indeed promote and create some

more jobs in this province. It becomes a bit of a red herring when that

is thrown so casually into the discussion, on the basis that it has

been to date.

So there are a number of questions there. As I said, the last

one I'm particularly concerned about, or interested in, really, is the

opportunities that would flow, I believe, to a number of Haidas and a

lot of the young people who would be involved not only in the operation

of the national park reserve but also in the infrastructure, in terms

of the tourist potential, guiding and all of those other kinds of

activities. It seems to me that that demands, or should have demanded

up t